From owner-freebsd-net Fri Feb 2 0:32:34 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from silby.com (cb34181-c.mdsn1.wi.home.com [24.183.3.139]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C1337B684 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:32:16 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 3843 invoked by uid 1000); 2 Feb 2001 08:32:14 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 2 Feb 2001 08:32:14 -0000 Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:32:14 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack To: Yu-Shun Wang Cc: Alex Rousskov , Subject: Re: IPComp question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Yu-Shun Wang wrote: > Hi, > > What you pointed out below is true. But I am more > interested in the relative performance since the number > I measured were under exactly the same setup and traffic > condition. I am just curious why IPComp was _relatively_ > (and signigicantly) slower than most of the encryption > algorithm. So I guess bandwidth is probably not the best > pointer since what I end up comparing was really the > implementations of different encryption/compression > algorithms which are CPU-bound in this case. > > regards, > > yushun. I don't understand why you're comparing encryption and compression algorithms. Yes, encryption does a lot of bit twiddling, which takes up processor time. However, compression has to do a lot of comparisons, looking back and ahead all the time. It's quite amazing to me that a compression algorithm even comes close to the speed of an encryption algorithm, frankly. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message